Notice: Home alone tonight?
Topic: Canada's free healthcare
+Anonymous A — 13.1 years ago #25,228
From the Fraser Institute, Canada's premier think tank for public policy.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=2023 2
> CALGARY, AB---A typical Canadian family with two parents and two children will pay $11,320 in taxes, on average, for public health care insurance in 2013, calculates a new report from the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
> “Health care is not free in Canada. The fact is, Canadian families pay thousands of dollars in taxes every year to cover the cost of public health care insurance. And that cost rose 1.5 times faster than average income over the past decade,” said Nadeem Esmail, Fraser Institute director of health policy studies and co-author of The Price of Public Health Care Insurance: 2013 Edition.
> Using data from Statistics Canada and the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the report calculates the amount of taxes Canadian families will pay to all levels of government in a year and the share of their total tax bill earmarked for public health insurance:
> Family consisting of two parents with one child (average income: $108,609) will pay $10,989.
> Family consisting of two parents with two children (average income: $113,247) will pay $11,320.
> Family consisting of one parent with one child (average income: $49,619) will pay $3,905.
> Family consisting of one parent with two children (average income: $49,372) will pay $3,387.
> Family consisting of two adults with no children (average income: $99,226) at home will pay $11,381.
> Unattached individuals (average income: $39,039) will pay $3,780.
> The report notes that since 2003, the cost of health care for all family types went up 53.3 per cent before inflation. The price of public health insurance increased more than 1.5 times faster than the cost of shelter and clothing, more than twice as fast as the cost of food, and nearly 1.5 times faster than average income over the decade.
> In addition, the report calculates that the 10 per cent of Canadian families with the lowest incomes (averaging $13,011) will pay $482, on average, for public health care insurance in 2013. The 10 per cent of families earning an average income of $56,596 will pay $5,364, while families among the top 10 per cent of income earners will pay $35,309 towards public health care insurance this year.
So Americans, THIS is what free healthcare really costs and the bottom line is that the Canadian system is in trouble and costs are rising as we speak. Add to that the general consensus that the Canadian system does not deal with live threatening illnesses and injuries nearly as well as the US system has.
+Anonymous B — 13.1 years ago, 2 hours later[T] [B] #299,495
Good point, I'll go have a chat with Obama about all this.
+Triptych !IupsXZPnnU — 13.1 years ago, 20 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,499
the Canadian system has taken care of all the medical needs I've had, for free, without hassle. I quite like it, thanks, I didn't have to pay $75 to see a doctor.
+quack — 13.1 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,507
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
so you prefer paying 3000 dollars a year to see a doctor once?
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,508
the only real problem with government sponsored health insurance is that you don't only pay for your own insurance but also for another unemployed person's.
·Triptych !IupsXZPnnU — 13.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,509
@299,507 (quack )
US spends more on health care per capita than Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
I wouldn't mind paying taxes so that people can see a doctor without any worries at all.
+squeegee — 13.1 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,512
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
How unselfish of you. Sort of the thing jesus would think, "make sacrifices of your personal wealth to help the poor."
Seems almost... caring.
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,520
@299,509 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
for different reasons though. american pharma companies have to put aside large amounts of money for in case they get sued for an equally large amount of money which is possible in the US. that increases the costs of everything.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,521
@299,509 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
also government regulations disable free market principles. its like communism. shitty service, no innovations, no choice, no nothing.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,523
@299,509 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
also if you like the idea of that, you don't need a government to make it work. just go to a homeless shelter every week/month/year and pay the bill for one person.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
·Triptych !IupsXZPnnU — 13.1 years ago, 19 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,524
@299,520 (quack )
They can't be sued outside of the US? News to me.
Paying taxes beats the fuck out of paying $75 to see a doctor once, dude. Everyone should be able to have access to health care without any worries.
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 25 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,531
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
not for insane amounts of money.
also it should be up to the doctors if they want to treat someone for free. why should doctors get a salary for treating a homeless person and the entire population pays for it? I fix everyone's computer and I deserve 100k of government money a year? that's communism. as sad as it is for some people, you aren't born with a right to someone else's services.
and paying taxes doesn't beat the shit out of anything. money doesn't magically appear. if you want to spend 3000 dollars on someone else's doctor bills then go ahead and do so.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 15 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,538
theres this separation between positive and negative rights. positive means I have the right to do something. negative means I have the right to receive something. in my opinion a government should only protect an individual's positive rights and negative rights are none of their business, simply because you can't give to anyone without taking from someone. some minor exceptions apply.
the US pretty much work like this. for instance you do not have a right of police protection. if you dial 911 and the cops wont show up because they have other shit to do, you can't sue them because it is your own duty to protect your health and property. the government only becomes responsible for that if they take away your ability to defend yourself, like when you are in jail or they forbid you to carry firearms.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
·Triptych !IupsXZPnnU — 13.1 years ago, 11 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,539
@299,531 (quack )
So only people who can afford $75 for a ten minute consultation should be able to get health care?
There are non-NHS doctors, they aren't obligated to take NHS patients I don't think.
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 23 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,544
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
only people who can get other people to give them something should get something.
·Triptych !IupsXZPnnU — 13.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,546
@previous (quack )
So it's totally fine for people to die of preventable/curable diseases because they're poor?
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 9 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,547
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
not fine but fair to the people who would otherwise be forced to cure them/pay for it. and there is no perfect system, only a fair one.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
·Triptych !IupsXZPnnU — 13.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,548
@previous (quack )
Should you not have to pay for schools you don't go to, then, or roads you don't use?
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 59 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,549
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
absolutely. both should be private.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
·Triptych !IupsXZPnnU — 13.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,552
@previous (quack )
Try that. Watch roads and education go to shit.
·Anonymous B — 13.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,553
@299,549 (quack )
Police too?
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,554
@299,552 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
it is a huge fairy tale that privatizing infrastructure decreases its quality. in my home country the government had a monopoly on telecommunication. my house could only get dial up until 2004 and we usually had a 100 dollar bill. cell phone was also 100. then they privatized the government owned Telecom company and opened the market and right now that house has 2 internet lines, one DSL and one cable, that total up to 25 bucks a month and my cell phone with unlimited calls, unlimited texts and unlimited internet costs 10 bucks a month.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 57 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,555
@299,553 (B)
ideally yes but that just wont work. the government still needs a way to execute the minimal authority it has.
·Triptych !IupsXZPnnU — 13.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,556
@299,554 (quack )
Privatised telecoms - cheapest phone plan is $30 a month.
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,557
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
you can't compare my country to america simply because of the population density. america needs X times the number of towers per person. but ask yourself how much the cheapest plan would be if the government ran the business.
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,558
free markets under ideal conditions give you the quality you ask for for the lowest possible price. may that be schools, cell phone service or roads.
·Anonymous B — 13.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,561
@previous (quack )
> ideal conditions
You mean when someone doesn't gain a monopoly and raise the price as high as they want, or when multiple companies work together to fix prices?
·quack — 13.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,562
@previous (B)
yes although I never understood why companies would do that. one of them could just fuck over the others and lower their prices and get a larger share etc.
+Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,563
@299,561 (B)
In which case capitalism deteriorates into corporatist monopolism. What you described isn't a free market. A free market entails the pre-requisite of a competitive environment.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
·Triptych !IupsXZPnnU — 13.1 years ago, 22 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,569
@299,558 (quack )
Lol no they don't. It's based on profit, if they can give you shittier things at higher prices - and they can - they will.
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,570
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
Okay Leninita Tovarichi.
·Triptych !IupsXZPnnU — 13.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,572
@previous (Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g)
You live in a country with socialised health care, you ridiculous twat.
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,574
@previous (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
A healthcare system which I've never used without coercion, that's to say, not voluntarily, and killed my mother, and many friends of mine. The supposed charitable benevolence of authority should be no substitute for one's self-preservative ingenuity. There are moral and ethical as well as ideological and economic considerations to this. I don't care how many hobos get injected with a HPV vaccine (and yes, in the ridiculous insanity of the soulless bureaucracy, they're now peddling this shit to men when they don't even have wombs) designed to dysgenically degenerate and eventually kill them, for instance; I do care that most guidelines for good practice seem designed to extending life only beyond an arbritary line sufficient to satisfy targets and ultimately, profits from their death (because really it's a private-public partnership with our NHS; pharmaceutical companies do receive concessions from the state.)
(Edited 1 minute later.)
+FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 13.1 years ago, 29 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,588
@299,552 (Triptych !IupsXZPnnU)
Education did go to shit because of centralized government funding. Bad argument.
+Anonymous H — 13.1 years ago, 4 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,678
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Thanks to standardized testing.
+RedCream — 13.1 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[T] [B] #299,714
The United States is about 10 times moar populous than Canada, hence one would rationally expect that there are econoamies of scale there. But noa, noa, Canada's per-capita spending on health care is about half of the United States.
The USA needs to admit its roal in failing to deliver health care that other industrialized nations are perfectly able to deliver.
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.